Re: please consider python-defaults and python2.3 for testing
* Matthias Klose [Tue, 03 May 2005 13:41:11 +0200]:
> On #irc I got the propsal to do another python2.3 upload to document,
> that the dbm module is missing (was part of woody, cannot be built
> anymore in sarge). The anydbm module should be used as a replacement.
> Should this be documented in the python2.3 package, or is a notice in
> the release note preferable? Same for the python-profiler package
> moved to non-free.
Rob Bradford, who is in charge of the release notes, tells me that
this stuff is perfectly suitable for them, and encourages us to write
a short paragraph with an explanation and the bug number for each
issue. (And I'd put put that in the README.Debian too.)
Matthias, what about this?:
Module 'dbm' not present in the default Python version: The
python2.2 and python2.3 packages shipped with Sarge don't include
the standard module 'dbm', which was present in the default Python
version in Woody, python2.1. The 'anydbm' module should be used as a
replacement, see bugs #197871 and #197875 for details. Also note
that both python2.1 and python2.4 in Sarge do include the module.
Modules 'profile' and 'pstats' moved to non-free: None of the
python2.X packages shipped with Sarge include the standard modules
'profile' and 'pstats', because they are licensed under a non-free
license (see bug #293932 for details). These two modules can be
found in the python2.X-profiler packages that are included in the
non-free section of the Debian archive.
Cheers,
--
Adeodato Simó
EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
Listening to: Joaquín Sabina - Contigo
Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.
-- Groucho Marx
Reply to: